Conflict Resolution Unique Design  Solves a Complex Sewer  Issue in Phoenix Presented by Arvid Veidmark, III Specialized S...
Project Overview <ul><ul><li>Design on-site and off-site infrastructure associated with 270 acre development in  Phoenix <...
Preliminary Field Investigations <ul><ul><li>Existing tie-in invert </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>42-in CCP water line  </li>...
Preliminary Design Conflicts The 42-in water line posed the greatest design challenge.  As-built data provided by the pipe...
Typical  Realignment
After Further Evaluation
Proposed Solutions #1 Divert North or South:  The slope and  cover of the 42” waterline appeared to remain fairly constant...
Smaller Pipe Alternatives Elliptical  Pipes Diversion into  two – 24”  Sewer Lines Diversion into three - 18” Sewer Lines ...
Chosen Alternative
Effective Diversion Solution Part 1 <ul><ul><li>Split 36-in sewer line into (3)18-in diversion pipes at point of conflict ...
Diversion Solution Part # 2
Excavation of Central Pit <ul><ul><li>E xcavated central receiving pit to connect the 78” casing from east and west - dept...
24” DIP Conflict
Resolution
Construction Began with a 36-in bore to install the 12” air jumper.
Pothole/Keyhole To Verify Preliminary Data
Construction Conflict As Builts Indicated –  Electrical duct bank, consisting of six 6-in PVC conduits, housed in 3-ft of ...
Resolution
Construction Part 2 Two hand tunnels were performed, in separate boring events, to install the 78” casing for the 18” dive...
42” RGRCP Support  <ul><ul><li>Problem  -  Due to the vast size of the central receiving pit, and the integrity of the exi...
<ul><ul><li>Casing was «notched» to accomodate existing waterlines. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Steel plating welded to the...
Arvid Veidmark, III, Consultant, Sr. Estimator Specialized Services Co. (SSC) arvid@sscboring.com/602-997-6164/ www.sscbor...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Sewer Design - Conflict Resolution

752 views

Published on

A unique solution to a large diameter sewer project where existing waterlines made a traditional design impossible.

0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
752
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
10
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Sewer Design - Conflict Resolution

  1. 1. Conflict Resolution Unique Design Solves a Complex Sewer Issue in Phoenix Presented by Arvid Veidmark, III Specialized Services Co. (SSC) & Douglas Patriquin Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (KHA)
  2. 2. Project Overview <ul><ul><li>Design on-site and off-site infrastructure associated with 270 acre development in Phoenix </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Install a portion of a regional sewer line and connect to an existing 36” line downstream </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Existing 36” line was located within right-of-way, passing though both City of Phoenix and Arizona Department of Transportation right-of-way </li></ul></ul>
  3. 3. Preliminary Field Investigations <ul><ul><li>Existing tie-in invert </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>42-in CCP water line </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>24-in DIP water line </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>16-in DIP sewer line </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>APS electrical duct bank (est. to be approx. 4-ft below grade-a standard APS depth) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>None of these utilities could be taken out of service for construction </li></ul></ul>
  4. 4. Preliminary Design Conflicts The 42-in water line posed the greatest design challenge. As-built data provided by the pipe manufacturer, and preliminary pothole information, indicated the bottom of the 42-in waterline was in direct conflict with the top 6-in of the proposed sewer line.
  5. 5. Typical Realignment
  6. 6. After Further Evaluation
  7. 7. Proposed Solutions #1 Divert North or South: The slope and cover of the 42” waterline appeared to remain fairly constant did not contain any relief where the sewer line could be realigned #2 Lift Station: The City was not interested in the maintenance and odor potential resulting from this option. #3 Siphon: This option was also rejected by the City due to maintenance and sizing issues. #4 Smaller Diameter Pipe:
  8. 8. Smaller Pipe Alternatives Elliptical Pipes Diversion into two – 24” Sewer Lines Diversion into three - 18” Sewer Lines Conversation with many pipe manufacturers indicated that RGRCP was available but lining was not available for sewer use. Closer inspection of the clearances ruled out this option and twin 21” pipes did not have the necessary capacity Ultimate Solution
  9. 9. Chosen Alternative
  10. 10. Effective Diversion Solution Part 1 <ul><ul><li>Split 36-in sewer line into (3)18-in diversion pipes at point of conflict </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Install on rail system in 78-in casing </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Allow for transfer below the 42-in & 24-in waterlines </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Converge flow downstream into existing 36-in line </li></ul></ul>
  11. 11. Diversion Solution Part # 2
  12. 12. Excavation of Central Pit <ul><ul><li>E xcavated central receiving pit to connect the 78” casing from east and west - depths of conflicts were verified - revealed a dip in the 24” line - directly impacted proposed alignment of the new sewer line. </li></ul></ul>
  13. 13. 24” DIP Conflict
  14. 14. Resolution
  15. 15. Construction Began with a 36-in bore to install the 12” air jumper.
  16. 16. Pothole/Keyhole To Verify Preliminary Data
  17. 17. Construction Conflict As Builts Indicated – Electrical duct bank, consisting of six 6-in PVC conduits, housed in 3-ft of concrete - Original design called for installation of 36-in vent in slurry above - Vacuum Potholing revealed additional PVC pipes.
  18. 18. Resolution
  19. 19. Construction Part 2 Two hand tunnels were performed, in separate boring events, to install the 78” casing for the 18” diversion pipes.
  20. 20. 42” RGRCP Support <ul><ul><li>Problem - Due to the vast size of the central receiving pit, and the integrity of the existing casing, the live 42” RGRCP water main was in need of some type of support to avoid cracking during the final stages of the 78” bore. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Solution - A cement “cradle” was constructed to support the 42” RGRCP above the newly installed 78” casing. </li></ul></ul>
  21. 21. <ul><ul><li>Casing was «notched» to accomodate existing waterlines. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Steel plating welded to the casing. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Annular space filled with sand gravel. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Project completed successfully. </li></ul></ul>Conclusion
  22. 22. Arvid Veidmark, III, Consultant, Sr. Estimator Specialized Services Co. (SSC) arvid@sscboring.com/602-997-6164/ www.sscboring.com Ask The Experts Douglas Patriquin, PE, LEED-AP Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. douglaspatriquin@kimley-horn.com/602-944-5500/ www.kimley-horn.com

×